Recently, I read somewhere, the ending m was only used to denote that -u was to be pronounced in a nasal way, with a heavy nuance of m. Can that be the case? Greeks rendered many that Latin words with â€“on. Are there other cases that some consonants or vowels were silent and only used to sign a special pronunciation of the previous / following vowel or consonant? I remember, here was once a discussion about gn that was actually like English ng, but most other European languages mistook it as gn.

On the matter of the final M, Roman grammarians did acknowledge that it was not a normal M, and Allen provides some quotes in Vox Latina (Priscian and Velius Longus, whom I cannot locate on the interwebs). Exactly what sound it made is open to some speculation, but the fact that words ending in M could be elided as if ending in a vowel and that final M was sometimes omitted in inscriptions suggests that final M was not quite a consonant. I'd speculate that neuters and accusatives in -um were represented -Î¿Î½ in Greek because that was the obvious analogous ending and corresponded with the final M that at least appeared in the written form.

I remember, here was once a discussion about gn that was actually like English ng, but most other European languages mistook it as gn.

Almost... it is believed that the N causes the preceding G to assimilate to a palatal nasal (Å‹), but the N is still pronounced following G. Thus, the sequence G-N is probably pronounced NG-N (Å‹n).

There are several other situations where certain consonants were used to represent unusual sounds, but some of those uses are distinct to early or later Latin. I really recommend buying Vox Latina if this sort of thing is interesting to you; it is somewhat expensive for a paperback, but still cheaper than most scholarly editions.

The ablest analysis of the question pins down the phonetics of -m as a nasalized [w] in careful speech, which in poetry behaved like a final glide and in casual speech styles seems to have dropped altogether. In certain fossilized phrases the complete loss of m with elision of the preceding vowel was established even in careful speech: animadverto 'notice' (animum adverto or veneo 'go for sale' (venum eo).Mytacism, then, seems to denote the mistake of pronouncing -m as an actual [m]; before a vowel, for the Roman ear, such an [m] had to belong to THE FOLLOWING WORD: so partem agis 'you play the part', if pronounced [partemagis[/i], could only be understood as parte magis 'in part rather'.

from Paragraph 237 of Sihler's New Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin.

Mytacism is a term used by some antique Roman scholars, presumably for the mispronunciation, as quoted.

What is important about the -m is that it is pronounced in clear speech (so Ciceros In Catilinam would have the nasal glide if said by Cicero himself, but perhaps not if his slave said it), but yet, it is dropped word-final in poetry, thus:

Qui potis est, inquis? Quod amantem iniuria talis (Catullus, 72)

the italizised letters are to be pronounced like a long in to make the verse fit to the dactylic hexameter.

Till now, we have only examples of final m. I can imagine how strange educated orators sounded to the audiences with all their efforts to articulate all those final m in official speeches, though they would not do it in everyday conversations. In poems, they will write m, but do not pronounce it since it does not go with the iambic meter. Were there other (semi)silent letters?

Lucus refers to the modern phonetic practice. In the past (especially the Middle Ages), the use of the tilde points just to the abbreviation and not to the sound. It's a coincidence that, for a word ending in "m" , the phonetic symbol today corresponds to what was once done by way of abbreviation.

Lucus refers to the modern phonetic practice. In the past (especially the Middle Ages), the use of the tilde points just to the abbreviation and not to the sound. It's a coincidence that, for a word ending in "m" , the phonetic symbol today corresponds to what was once done by way of abbreviation.

timeodanaos wrote:It is, though, a funny coincidence that medieval practise points in the same direction as modern phonetic writing!

True enough, Timeodanaos, but a coincidence nonetheless, I believe, because the use of the tilde was arbitrary, whether at the end of a word or in its middle, where the "m" was certainly fully sounded. And the tilde was only one abbreviation among many others which don't trigger thoughts about odd, modern-day phonetic coincidences. You could always hypothesize that the medieval practice with the tilde at least arose out of an earlier phonetic practice, even if it was used otherwise, but how to test that?

One way would be to pick up the phone and give Charlemagne a ring, but I'm not sure he'd answer.

I'm not saying medieval manuscrips editors knew about ancient practise and copied it. I'm just in awe. The tilde instead of final -m was the first thing I ever learned about medieval Latin ortography, and the omission of final -m was one of the first things I learned about archaic inscriptions, after -us = -os.

ThomasGR wrote:Till now, we have only examples of final m. I can imagine how strange educated orators sounded to the audiences with all their efforts to articulate all those final m in official speeches, though they would not do it in everyday conversations. In poems, they will write m, but do not pronounce it since it does not go with the iambic meter. Were there other (semi)silent letters?

Where is it written that the "educated orators," as you say, care Thoma, made such an effort to pronounce the final -m? It seems unnecessary that they should do so from my perspective.

Lucus refers to the modern phonetic practice. In the past (especially the Middle Ages), the use of the tilde points just to the abbreviation and not to the sound. It's a coincidence that, for a word ending in "m" , the phonetic symbol today corresponds to what was once done by way of abbreviation.

Lucus Eques wrote:Where is it written that the "educated orators," as you say, care Thoma, made such an effort to pronounce the final -m? It seems unnecessary that they should do so from my perspective.

It is my conclusion, from what Benissimus, Timeodanaos and you, Lucus, wrote. Benissimus says there was a sound, but no one seems to know exactly how it sounded, Timeodanaos says only the educated would pronounce it, and last, your post. I made also a parallel with the Greek world, where from very old times educated people spoke in a strange, the "educated" way. We may watch it even in our days how the higher clergy speaks and handles the Greek language.

ThomasGR wrote:Till now, we have only examples of final m. I can imagine how strange educated orators sounded to the audiences with all their efforts to articulate all those final m in official speeches, though they would not do it in everyday conversations. In poems, they will write m, but do not pronounce it since it does not go with the iambic meter. Were there other (semi)silent letters?

Where is it written that the "educated orators," as you say, care Thoma, made such an effort to pronounce the final -m? It seems unnecessary that they should do so from my perspective.

Quintilian 9,4,40:

On the other hand, wherever this same letter m comes at the end of a word and is brought into contact with the opening vowel of the next word in such a manner as to render coalescence possible, it is, although written, so faintly pronounced (e.g. in phrases such as multum ille and quantum erat) that it may almost be regarded as producing the sound of a new letter.316 For it is not elided, but merely obscured, and may be considered as a symbol occurring between two vowels simply to prevent their coalescence.

Lucus Eques wrote:Where is it written that the "educated orators," as you say, care Thoma, made such an effort to pronounce the final -m? It seems unnecessary that they should do so from my perspective.

It is my conclusion, from what Benissimus, Timeodanaos and you, Lucus, wrote. Benissimus says there was a sound, but no one seems to know exactly how it sounded, Timeodanaos says only the educated would pronounce it, and last, your post. I made also a parallel with the Greek world, where from very old times educated people spoke in a strange, the "educated" way. We may watch it even in our days how the higher clergy speaks and handles the Greek language.

I know precisely how final -m sounded and sounds (meaning a range of sounds all legitimate within the definition of the element) in ancient Latin and modern Latin with the Classical pronunciation. I have described it: nasalization of the preceding vowel; the final -m is not fully closed (as is the final -m in English "ram"). We have the Portuguese word "senÃ£o," and that "Ã£" is much like the final syllable of the Latin word "puellam."

This description is taken directly from the Roman grammarians, and is easily replicated in the mouth of the modern speaker to produce a Classically accurate sound.

ThomasGR wrote:Benissimus says there was a sound, but no one seems to know exactly how it sounded

To make myself clearer, as it seems I forgot to include a very important piece of information about final M in my initial reply: there is good evidence in the Latin language, in its written forms, and in its derivative languages that an M at the end of a word (and sometimes at the end of a syllable) produced nasalization of the preceding vowel. However, I do not see how one can "precisely know how final -m sounded... in ancient Latin" based on the statements of the Latin grammarians. I also am not aware of evidence that final M was more or less enunciated in certain contexts. The only thing we know for sure from the Romans, if we are to trust grammarians, is that the sound is much unlike the normal letter M and has no separate letter of its own.

We can be, to a great extent, sure that the vowel before final M was nasalized, based on these facts:

1. in word-final position the sound of M was "barely audible" (fere ad aures), also testified in its omission in some inscriptions
2. the M sounds different at the end of a word (obscurum in extremitate... sonat)
3. the vowel before M could be elided as if there were no consonant following
4. M itself is a nasal consonant, which have been known in other languages to produce assimilation of nearby vowels
5. certain peculiarities in the forms of Romance languages suggest a nasalized vowel in place of a former vowel-m series

Based on this, I feel, we can be very sure of our theory of final M, and I would certainly encourage this system of pronunciation, but I don't think we can be absolutely sure without a short leap of faith.

Last edited by benissimus on Tue May 13, 2008 12:09 am, edited 2 times in total.

"tuum" has two syllables, so you may like to alter your definition some â€” still, your observation is keen.

I'm afraid I didn't cite my sources well enough - This particular observation is from Max Niedermann's 'Historische Lautlehre des Lateinischen', Heidelberg 1951. 'tuum' is cited as having only one syllable in vulgar Latin in that book. He might also have the need to alter the definition, afterall, older historical grammars tend to be less than perfect.

I think that "m" is a very special consonant. It is by its nature nasalized (as you say) and, not only that, but, used in beginning a word and in ending a word, the mouth remains shut while pronouncing it. Isn't it the only letter to end a word with the mouth tightly closed? That limits the volume that an "m" can receive in normal speech at the end of a word, and remember it can't have a long vowel before it (as Priscian says), so the final syllable is always disposed of quickly. Many people have the habit of making the final syllable longer by lengthening the "m", by humming it, but if they pronounce a final "m" with due care to the syllable length (short), the letter "m" by its very nature almost disappears at the end. So I think Lord is absolutely right when he says, "the final syllable ending in M is to be lightly and rapidly pronounced". You don't even need to think about Portuguese, or French, or Italian habits. Whatever your language, a final "m" will always be "nasal" and "obscure", as long as you make the letter short (as it should be), and pronounce with the mouth closed. (I suspect some may imagine it pronounced at the end with mouth open, --as may indeed have happened in time as Latin evolved into Romance languages.)
"M" litteram, puto, consonantem naturÃ¢ peculiarem esse, quiÃ nonsolum naso pronuntiatur (ut dicis) sed etiam os clausum manet dum "m" sonitur. Nonne littera sola quae sic facit? Eo modo, loquellÃ¢ naturale, vis eius artatur. Memini, quoque, "m" ante se vocalem longam nunquam habere (apud Priscianum), ergo semper syllaba cum "m" in extremitate dictionis naturÃ¢ est brevis (etsi apud poetas positione longa). Multi autem syllabam extremam longam facere solent, qui bombilantes "m" prolatant. Qui tempori (brevi) syllabae cum "m" terminantis curam dabis, "m" sonum ferÃ¨ abire facias et haec res sine conatu. RectÃ¨ itaque dicit Lord, breviter et leviter syllabam extremam in "m" terminantem sonari oportet. Modis loquendi quoque Lusorum, Gallicorum, Italicorum abditis, utcumque linguÃ¢ tuÃ¢, "m" in extremitate dictionis semper obscurum et nasale erit si litteram citÃ² sonabis, et ore clauso. (Suspicor nonnullos esse qui eum pronuntiare velint ore aperto, --ut tempore quidem factum sit, linguÃ¢ latinÃ¢ in linguis romanicis mutanti.)

You must add, though, Adriane, that also in the Classical period the final -m was not fully closed. This is important. It defines its character, in the manner I described above.

Also, the syllable with a final -m is always long, while the vowel itself is left "short" â€” but that's really just a technicality, since the whole syllable IS the nasalized vowel (the -m, as I mentioned, is less there than not there).

Moreover, you must account for the elision thru the -m. Such blending is only possible with vowels, pure or nasalized.

Here are fuller quotes from Keil, expanding Allen's Vox Latina quotes on M, together with a lovely bit I found by Servius on M. Although Servius is 4th century, I think he's very interesting on the choices that were open to you in pronouncing terminal M before a word starting with a vowel, together with their advantages and disadvantages. You could drop the terminal M in speech or not, but not if you ended up with two vowels the same colliding. I can't find the evidence for an open-lipped M as opposed to an closed-lipped M, other than the easy substitution of N for M. By that I mean, if N is written for M you can understand an open-lipped nasal sound may be meant (and was meant: "tan durum" for "tam durum" and Longus says "'etiam nunc' plenius per n quam per m enuntiatur"), but where an M is used you cannot. To make things even more complicated, if you read what Longus says about using half an m to describe this sound, you realize that N need not be an open-lipped N sound at all but a closed-lipped half-an-M sound!!! I don't know how you can say you know for certain, Lucus, about these sounds, although you're much closer to Allen on this than I am and I am without experience on this. It's interesting, I think, that elision in verse is treated as a special case by Priscian, separate from talking, as well as drawing attention to early cases of no elision with terminal M in verse. [No point my trying to express this in Latin since it just unpacks the Latin quotes below. Also, you know I'm discussing this only to test the evidence and not because I know I'm right. If anything, it's more likely I'm wrong but it's more fun to learn through dispute, I reckon, when I have so little pride to lose.]

Lucus wrote:Also, the syllable with a final -m is always long, while the vowel itself is left "short" â€” but that's really just a technicality, since the whole syllable IS the nasalized vowel (the -m, as I mentioned, is less there than not there)

With you on that, except I believe in the option of "lips shut" at the end, modifying the nasalized vowel sound into the hint on an M (in those cases where the M isn't dropped altogether). [Timeodanaos cito: "O quam mihi placet illud!"]

if N is written for M you can understand an open-lipped nasal sound may be meant (and was meant: "tan durum" for "tam durum" and Longus says "'etiam nunc' plenius per n quam per m enuntiatur")

Definitely not so. This is sandhi (Sk. "joining") â€” where there is alteration of word final sounds to conform to the sound of the word that follows. Elision is an aspect of sandhi, and so is the transition of -m to -n. Because of the relative weakness of final -m, and its generality as a nasal vowel with littel articulation, it could be transmutated into any appropriate nasal in front of any consonant.

Let's use the preposition "cum" because it can come in front of anything.

We write:
cum curru

But really these sound as one "joined" word:
cuncurru [that 'n' is the velar nasal, the same at the end of the word "sing"]

Equally, we write:
cum Gallo

But we sound:
cungallo

This sandhi is a very natural aspect of all languages â€” English does it, Italian, Russian, you name it.

We write:
cum Tito

But we sound:
cuntito [here the 'n' is the dental nasal]

We write:
cum dentibus

But we sound:
cundentibus

We write:
cum patre

But we sound:
cumpatre [the 'm' is full and true, or at least more so]

It's likely that, even in these sandhis, some element of the natural nasal-vowel quality of the -m remains, even though it's not "left hanging," so to speak, as it would be at the end of a sentence, conforming naturally to the consonant that follows. Hence "tan durum."

Heh, you're right about, "how can I know for certain," and I meant to put a parenthetical caveat next to that "I know precisely..." phrase of mine from above but there already was a parethetical caveat in that sentence. So I'll say again more fully:

I know precisiely (as precisely as one can know anything from historical texts alone) how the -m was pronounced and is pronounced; for there is a range of possibilities, and this range fits by definition the definition handed down to us by the grammarians. This range has possibilities that are all mutually inclusive, and none of them mutually exclusive, meaning that they all are legitimate and "correct." Moreover, this range of possibilities for the -m is fairly small, although there are a few variations of interpretation, and variations thru time.

Simply: if one follows the 'rule's from the various grammarians, one sounds the -m correctly, every time; not every hodiern -m will sound the same between our different mouths, but likely not every final -m sounded the same among ancient Roman contemporaries either â€” there is a range of possibile variation. Just as there is for trilled 'r's (compare the different and slight variants between 'r's among the Italian dialects, or the difference between Italian and Spanish 'r', which from an English perspective is non exsistent, yet from within one of these languages variations in the sound are noticeable). There is also a range of environment, which I discussed above a bit, and a range of timings. Still, just follow the rules, and you get a very consisent and natural sound that makes sense.

I forgot to give the fuller version of the Pompeius quote in Lord, from earlier. I'll try to take in what you say shortly, Luce, but this relates to what you're talking about, although I don't think it supports it.

Luce care amice,
Dixi "If N is written for M you can understand an open-lipped nasal sound"
Dixisti: "Definitely not so"

Dicis: "cuncurru [that 'n' is the velar nasal, the same at the end of the word "sing"] "
Rogo: "Is that velar nasal 'n' not pronounced with the lips open?" /Nonne labris apertis (laxis) 'n' velare nasale/velarnasale (?) pronuntiatur?

adrianus wrote:Luce care amice,Dixi "If N is written for M you can understand an open-lipped nasal sound"Dixisti: "Definitely not so"

Dicis: "cuncurru [that 'n' is the velar nasal, the same at the end of the word "sing"] "Rogo: "Is that velar nasal 'n' not pronounced with the lips open?" /Nonne labris apertis (laxis) 'n' velare nasale/velarnasale (?) pronuntiatur?

Yes, the lips are open for ALL vowels and consonants produced by the mouth (minus true 'm'), velar 'n' no exception â€” only fully closed 'm' is unique in that the lips are closed.

A velar 'n' with lips inherently open cannot justify the description of not-fully-closed-Latin-final-'m' any more than 't' or 'r' fits the description.

Lucus wrote: velar 'n' with lips inherently open cannot justify the description of not-fully-closed-Latin-final-'m' any more than 't' or 'r' fits the description.

But I didn't say that. Illud non dixi.

I have given above direct evidence from the grammarians of a final M before a word beginning with a vowel sounding like an initial M, to the extent that, unless one is careful, the problem of myotacismus in speech arises. Several grammarians recommend more careful pronunciation and explicitly recommend suspension of sound between the words (the opposite of 'sanhi'). They recommend this over and above exclusion of the M, because of the problems with elision this can lead to (--it's harder to understand quickly what's said, unless the context is clear), but exclusion is still a valid option in most cases (except when identical vowels collide). If the final M had an open-lipped nasal N sound as opposed to a closed-lip nasal M sound, the problem of myotacismus would not arise.

adrianus wrote:I have given above direct evidence from the grammarians of a final M before a word beginning with a vowel sounding like an initial M, to the extent that, unless one is careful, the problem of myotacismus in speech arises. Several grammarians recommend more careful pronunciation and explicitly recommend suspension of sound between the words (the opposite of 'sanhi'). They recommend this over and above exclusion of the M, because of the problems with elision this can lead to (--it's harder to understand quickly what's said, unless the context is clear), but exclusion is still a valid option in most cases (except when identical vowels collide). If the final M had an open-lipped nasal N sound as opposed to a closed-lip nasal M sound, the problem of myotacismus would not arise.

The direct evidence you give is from 5th century grammarians very far away from the Classical Latin of Catullus and Vergil. Foreigners had come to speak the language, and would incorrectly read the final letter -m as a full 'm', producing these problems. Meanwhile, native Romans would come to drop the -m since it was barely ever there anyway.

Note also that in the Pompeius quote you made above he says that both full pronunciation of the -m and also the hiatus created by its exclusion are "vices." He says that "suspension," that is the maintaining of a full 'm' is a preferable vice to complete absence. Pompeius is suggesting a hypercorrection, and is incorrect, especially since we understand the third-century nature of Latin from the L. Corn. Scipio epitaph, and the elision thru 'm' in Classical Latin.

Lucus wrote:I know precisiely (as precisely as one can know anything from historical texts alone) how the -m was pronounced and is pronounced...Simply: if one follows the 'rule's from the various grammarians...[alibi] This description is taken directly from the Roman grammarians...

When you said those things, I imagined you were working from primary sources. I understand now that you are repeating what Allen says. I have read Allen, too. I just prefer the primary sources. Maybe Allen is right, though. I just find some of the sources capable of sustaining a broader interpretation.

Lucus wrote:Note also that in the Pompeius quote you made above he says that both full pronunciation of the -m and also the hiatus created by its exclusion are "vices."

Are you sure you aren't mistranslating the Pompeius there, Lucus? He says suspension/halting is better than exclusion/letter-dropping because it avoids both the problem of myotacismus and the problem of hiatus, whereas letter-dropping avoids only the first.

Suspensio/suspension both in Latin and English, as well as to a state of hanging or elevation or arching, refers to a stay, stop, halt, interruption. By taking care to pronounce the words "hominem amicum" as separate, a tiny notional gap has been introduced, caused by the silence of the completed closed-lip M in "hominem" before the start of the vowel beginning "amicum". I think that is Keil's note, "interponas aliquid puta" or "for example you interpose something", but that isn't inconsistent with that idea of a tiny gap to preserve the word distinctions. Interposing a less problematic word is what Consentius recommends to avoid myotacismus:

Either way, reading suspensio as an arch or as a stop or gap or halt (the silence of the closed-lip M once done) amounts to the same thing. 'Hominem amicum' has a closed-lip M in Pompeius and the words are distinct.

adrianus wrote:Suspensio/suspension both in Latin and English, as well as to a state of hanging or elevation or arching, refers to a stay, stop, halt, interruption.

Not so. There is no "halting" of any kind in "suspensio;" there is only the permission of the final -m to begin the next word. "Suspensio" means "support," the maintaining of the -m as written as if it were a word-initial 'm'. "Halting" is what hiatus is, a cut in the flow, a "gap," and is contrary then to what you were referring to. I suggest leaving go the term "halting" since it is confusing for these reasons.

Back to the matter at hand:

What precisely is "myotacismus," I ask myself, because it is not clearly defined. Is it the same as the nasalized vowel description that I have above provided, and also according to Allen? the grammatical name for the phrase-final -m?

And the fact that Pompeius and Donatus, both 5th century and very late, insist on the need for hiatus, as the only recourse, is troubling. It means that they are so hypercorrected that they are not even comfortable with the natural blending and elision of vowels we would exspect between "homine amicum," a blending that is so natural between vowels in Italian, Spanish, and others, and essential to the metres of the Classical Latin four hundred years prior to the time of Pompeius and Donatus.

Lucus wrote:There is no "halting" of any kind in "suspensio;" there is only the permission of the final -m to begin the next word.

Not so (to borrow a phrase). Suspensio does not give permission to M to start the next word. That is the problem it is introduced to correct. Suspensio is the articulation of the phrase so it is audibly clear that M belongs to the end of the first word and not to the beginning of the second word (Servius says "suspensione pronuntiandi"). I don't have to worry about what I call it if you are confused by my saying "halting". In the grammatical terms of the ancients, uncompounded words are generally understood to have gaps between them (elision aside) and that has nothing to do with 'hiatus vitium'. Let's just leave it as suspensio.

Lucus wrote:What precisely is "myotacismus," I ask myself, because it is not clearly defined.

I don't see how the grammarians could express it more clearly. It seems pretty clear to me. Myotacismus is the careless shifting of the M from the end of one word to the start of the next if it starts with a vowel. So "hominem amicum" is read as "homine mamicum". Do you not hear a difference when you don't speak carelessly?

Lucus wrote:And the fact that Pompeius and Donatus, both 5th century and very late, insist on the need for hiatus, as the only recourse, is troubling.

I'm troubled here, too, because in the quotes above "hiatus" is used as a technical term for the problem to avoid. I think you're mistranslating again. Pompeius and Servius (after Donatus) recommend "suspensio", which as I pointed out carries the meaning of halt or gap. Now you seem actually to be agreeing when you use the word "hiatus" for "suspensio". The grammarians, though, use "interstitium" and not "hiatus" for "gap between words", I believe. Pompeius and Servius (after Donatus) recommend suspensio as best to overcome the problems of myotacismus and of hiatus. (Pompeius's reference to Melissus is to the reasoning strategy: a solution only works if it doesn't cause another problem.) So what then is the problem of hiatus expressed here? I believe I know but give me time to gather the evidence.